Eastern Orthodox Church - Opus Publicum

April 10, 2016 Church, Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

The Last Thing I’m Going to Say About Amoris Laetitia

By now everyone and their sister, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, has had a chance to weigh-in on Amoris Laetitia (AL), Pope Francis the Merciful’s ponderous exhortation which may, or may not, have altered Church teaching on marriage forever; reaffirmed traditional Catholic doctrine with beauty and profundity; or accomplished nothing at all. Where one comes down on those options (or a plethora of others which lie somewhere between them) probably says a lot more about their religious orientation than anything else. For what it’s worth, I’m leaning toward “accomplished nothing at all,” not because I believe everything is hunky-dory in the Church (no, no, no, not that) but because Catholic doctrine on marriage, the family, and sexuality has been a mess for more than half-a-century already; AL doesn’t add to it in any significant way. What it does do, however, is bring out into the open what all of those with eyes to see already knew, namely that “individual conscience” rather than the Gospel shapes the decisions of millions of Catholics regarding remarriage, contraception, and the moral status of any number of sexual practices and proclivities. Those who already cut conservative-to-traditional, for the most part, still affirm traditional doctrine in these areas; nothing in AL will now prompt them to start divorcing en masse or approaching the sacraments unworthily. Catholics on the other end of the ideological spectrum will keep doing what they’ve always been doing, though perhaps they’ll be a tad bit bolder about it. No one, however, should even attempt to claim that AL did a single thing to relieve the great moral and doctrinal crisis afflicting the Corpus Mysticum. That’s just a bridge too far.

I see no reason to comment in-depth on AL or, for that matter, much of anything else the Holy Father in Rome has to say. When it comes specifically to the issue of marriage, his credibility was shot the second he imprudently reformed the annulment process last year. At that moment “Catholic divorce” became a sure-fire reality and all claims that the Catholic Church’s approach to broken marriages differed substantially from the Orthodox approach were rendered implausible. In fact, given the nature of Francis’s annulment reforms and the easy-going manner in which many annulments can now be attained, there is a powerful argument to be made that the Orthodox (at least in the Russian tradition) have a much more demanding process in place for marriage dissolutions. Does that make the Orthodox approach “right”? Probably not, though they deserve credit for being honest about what they are doing even if it emerged as something of a late-Byzantine historical accident. And while nobody wants to mutter this too loudly, let’s not forget that until the late 19th/early 20th Century, a number of Greek Catholic churches followed Ortho-praxis regarding second and third marriages. If Rome is serious about the Eastern Catholics reclaiming their authentic traditions, shouldn’t that be back on the table, too?

But I digress. It’s well above my paygrade to pontificate on how the Greek Catholic churches ought to handle marriages and divorces. Besides, Rome has been telling them what to do (in contradictory fashion) for decades now. Imagine, though, if the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) were to adopt contemporary Russian Orthodox practice regarding marriage dissolutions. What that would mean is that the UGCC would be more thorough about the dissolution issue than the Latins are about annulments. Would that be such a bad thing? Yes, I know many conservative and traditional Latins would scoff at that possibility just as they scoff about the idea of married Eastern clergy, but so what? If the Latin Catholic Church wishes to play coy about how they handle marriage and divorce with nary a mention of the myriad of contradictions which attend to that handling, why not let the Greek Catholics join their separated Orthodox brethren in being perfectly frank about what is going on? Just think of the ecumenical implications! (Ok, maybe there aren’t any; Greek Catholics are still “accursed Uniates” and “bandits” according to some luminaries in the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches.)

With all that said, let me close by promising that I will never speak of AL on Opus Publicum ever again. I do reserve the right to make mention of it in other forums, however, should the need arise. I will leave it to those far more invested in apologizing for/damning Francis, the post-Vatican II magisterium, and the deplorable leadership in the Latin Church to unpack this-or-that murky passage in AL or project what some footnote could mean for the future of Holy Mother Church. I have popcorn to make.

April 4, 2016 Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

The SSPX Regularization Saga Continues

Catholic outlets, mainstream news, and, of course, one notorious traditionalist web-log are all reporting that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), met with Pope Francis on Friday. Rumors have been swirling for months that Francis would unilaterally regularize the Society without requesting the SSPX to sign-on to compromising doctrinal statement. Many will recall the collapse of the Vatican/SSPX talks in 2012 was largely over a so-called “Doctrinal Preamble,” which, inter alia, demanded the Society recognize the liceity of the Novus Ordo Missae and no longer openly dissent from certain problematic elements (by Society lights) contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council (e.g., religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality). Since that time, Bishop Fellay has gone into extensive detail on the ups-and-downs of his dealings with the Roman authorities and the contradictions he was forced to face at that time. Unfortunately, some in the Society, including the now-expelled Bishop Richard Williamson, took the Vatican/SSPX talks as an excuse to both denounce Bishop Fellay’s leadership of the Society and to fire-up their own “Resistance” movement which, at this point, is practically sedevacantist in nature. What, I wonder, will happen this time should Francis move ahead with regularization?

For those aware of recent Eastern Orthodox history, a parallel scenario played itself out in 2007 when the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) after more than eight decades of estrangement. While ROCOR began as a continuation of the MP with the express desire to keep Russian Orthodoxy alive during a period of Soviet domination in the Russian homeland, decades of separation from not just the MP but large swathes of world Orthodoxy began to take their toll as clerics and layfolk alike began to see ROCOR as the “only true” part of the Orthodox Church left. Granted, ROCOR wisely expelled some of these voices from its ranks while making small strides on the ground to patch things up with other local Orthodox churches, but by the turn of the millennium stronger strides had to be taken. Under the courageous leadership of the late Metropolitan Laurus, ROCOR proceeded rapidly down the path of full unity with Moscow and, by extension, the whole Orthodox Church. Some in ROCOR, including a number of priests and bishops, objected to the plan and broke off into their own “Resistance” or “True Orthodox” sects, none of which have experienced significant growth on their own or borne much in the way of good fruit. As for ROCOR, none of the doomsday predictions came true. It still continues on as a conservative voice in world Orthodoxy, opening up new parishes and monasteries in the West while building closer ties with other Orthodox jurisdictions.

Now, some may point out that Orthodoxy is not Catholicism and that the crisis in the Catholic Church dwarfs the problems embedded in the MP (problems which have not fully abated in the decade since ROCOR reconciled with its mother church). However, this is no clear evidence to show that SSPX regularization will spell the downfall of the Society or lead to any sort of compromise. If anything, it will make the Society’s position in the Church stronger insofar as traditional and non-traditional Catholics who, for various reasons, feel uncomfortable drawing too close to the SSPX while it remains in an inrregular canonical position can comfortably rethink that position. Moreover, priests and bishops of the SSPX will no doubt have a greater opportunity to participate in mainstream Catholic discussions on matters of discipline and doctrine while ministering to a larger flock in need of Catholic truth. These possibilities are a cause for celebration, not fear mongering and worry. Still, some will no doubt reject all forms of regularization, preferring to hold to the idea of the SSPX being their Petite Église where only the most “hardcore” and “steadfast” are welcome. And what will come of that mentality? More splinter groups with a tiny audience, no core internal discipline, and little in the way of obedience, either to the lawful authorities appointed by Rome or the transit ones they erect for themselves.

March 30, 2016 Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Theology

A Tale of Two Marks

Neo-Orthodox around the blogosphere and social media outlets have been offering up glowing praise for Moscow Patriarch Kirill’s recent Sunday of Orthodoxy homily. (For those unaware, the Sunday of Orthodoxy commemorates the Church’s triumph over Iconoclasm and is celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent.) The homily, which can be viewed over at the Byzantine Texas blog here, denounces “false union” with the Catholic Church while upholding Mark of Ephesus as a true champion of Orthodoxy. No doubt Kirill’s words were inspired in part by intra-Orthodox panic over his recent meeting with Pope Francis and the upcoming discussion of ecumenism which will be held at the Great and Holy Council this summer. According to the neo-Orthodox, Mark of Ephesus is a hero for his alleged anti-Latin stance and refusal to cave to “Latin innovations.” Mark, so the story goes, wanted nothing to do with the corrupt, heterodox Latin Church nor did he hold the Petrine Office in any particular esteem. While few neo-Orthodox have ever read a single word penned by Mark, almost all of them are 100% sure of what Mark stood for and why.

Complicating — or, rather, overturning — this simplistic and ahistorical image of Mark is Fr. Christiaan Kappes, professor at Ss. Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Seminary in Pennsylvania. Kappes latest effort to clarify Mark’s thinking for contemporary audiences, “Mark of Ephesus, The Council of Florence, and the Roman Papacy,” is included in the new SVS Press anthology, Primacy in the Church, and available online for free here. While Kappes stresses that Mark of Ephesus would have serious qualms about the nature of the present-day papacy and the over-centralization of ecclesiastical governance, Mark’s ecclesiology is hardly anti-papal. Moreover, as some of Kappes’s other studies on Mark make clear, the saintly bishop of Ephesus displayed a great deal of charity and respect toward the Latins during the tense debates at the Council of Florence, far more than many Orthodox feel compelled to offer toward their separated brethren today.

March 22, 2016 Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Anti-Ecumenism and the Orthodox Council

George Demacopoulos, a professor at Fordham University and co-director of that institution’s Orthodox Christian Studies Center, is taking aim at extremist Orthodox Christians (specifically two bishops) who are attempting to undermine the upcoming Great and Holy Council’s discussion on ecumenism. Instead of posting an excerpt, let me strongly suggest you read the piece in its entirety. As Demacopoulos makes clear, the position of the Orthodox anti-ecumenists is driven more by ideology (and perhaps nationalism) rather than fidelity to Holy Tradition, and their assertion that non-Orthodox Trinitarian baptisms are invalid has no authentic canonical support. Unfortunately, there seems to be an uptick in neo-Orthodox polemics against Catholics as of late, as evidenced in part by a recent book by one Fr. John Heers which argues that Catholic sacraments are devoid of grace and that this position — which only came in vogue during the last two centuries — is an authentic expression of tradition. For those interested, I briefly commented on Heers’s book and neo-Orthodox here.

With that out of the way, let me be clear that “ecumenism” is a slippery concept, and I certainly have no beef with any Catholic or Orthodox Christian who doesn’t wish for “ecumenism” to devolve into “I’m ok, you’re ok.” (Sadly, in the Catholic world at least, that’s exactly what has transpired over the past 50 years.) Ecumenism between Catholics and Orthodox should always have as its end goal the restoration of full ecclesiastical communion. Period. But of course Rome (first, second, or third) wasn’t built in a day and as anyone who has eyed East/West ecumenical discussions over the past couple of decades well knows, there is a lot of historical debris which needs to be cleared out of the way before the building process can truly begin. Engaging in needless name-calling and pointless polemics only adds to the clutter.

March 21, 2016 Eastern Orthodox Church, Spirituality

Steve the Builder Returns

I realize that I am late in commenting on this, but Steve the Builder, the podcast of one Steve Robinson which is hosted by Ancient Faith Radio, has returned to the airwaves after a five-year hiatus. The “relaunch episode,” which serves as both an update on Robinson’s life and a reflection on discerning the will of God, is a must-listen installment of the show, particularly during this season of Great Lent (or Holy Week for Western Christians).

For those unaware, Robinson used to pen the equal parts insightful and hilarious Pithless Thoughts web-log, co-hosts another podcast entitled Our Life in Christ, and has authored two books, including Fire From Ashes: The Reality of Perpetual Conversion with Fr. Joseph Huneycutt.

March 7, 2016 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

UGCC and Rome Reaffirm Full Communion

Despite the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church’s (UGCC) widespread dissatisfaction with the so-called “Havana Declaration” between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, the heads of the UGCC were in Rome last Friday to both commemorate the sorrowful 70th anniversary of the “Pseudo-Synod of Lviv” which liquidated the Ukrainian Church and reaffirm the UGCC’s ties to Rome and the Holy Father. Here is an excerpt from the official address of the UGCC’s Holy Synod:

February 26, 2016 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Liturgy, Roman Catholic Church

Leithart Looks East

I am not sure what inspired Peter J. Leithart to take an interest in Catholic liturgical reform, but over at First Things he has an post up on it entitled “Liturgical Orientalism.” For the most part, Leithart leans on an earlier academic presentation, “Eastern Presuppositions and Western Liturgical Reform,” by Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. For those familiar with Taft’s previous work, much of what he says (and what Leithart summarizes) is old news: “everyone” agreed that liturgical reform was needed at Vatican II; Latin liturgists took a shine (perhaps too much of a shine) to Eastern liturgy; the post-Vatican II reforms are a mixed bag (at least as far as the Liturgiae Horarum is concerned); and so forth. Unfortunately, Leithart doesn’t have much to add to the conversation, preferring instead to defer to Taft whose conclusions are, at points, contestable.

There can be little doubt now that Latin liturgical reformers “looked East” for inspiration (or perhaps just ex post facto justification) during the tumultuous decades of the 1950s and 60s, though subsequent scholarship has poured cold water on the idea that all of the reforms undertaken were truly “Eastern” and/or “ancient.” And while neither Taft nor Leithart make mention of it, some of the Latin liturgical reforms undertaken during the last century actually had the effect of driving contemporary Roman Rite praxis further away from widespread Eastern praxis as exemplified by the Byzantine Rite. For instance, the Latin reform of Holy Week, which ushered out the possibility of anticipating services like Tenebrae and the Easter Vigil, stands in contrast Eastern Christians anticipating the services (e.g., Holy Friday Matins on Thursday evening, Holy Saturday Vigil Liturgy in the morning, etc.). Other, more noticeable, reforms, such as the three-year lectionary, priests commonly serving Mass versus populum, “Extraordinary Ministers,” and such find no legitimate basis in the Christian East.

February 22, 2016 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

A Clarification Concerning Russian Orthodoxy

Russian Orthodoxy, the brilliant religious tradition of Russia which is now a prominent feature of diaspora Eastern Christianity, neither rises nor falls with the politics of the contemporary Russian state or its Patriarchal church. I am compelled to mention this because certain murmurers have implied — or outright stated — that I am anti-Russian, anti-Orthodox, anti-Russian Orthodox, etc. due to my support of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) and my low view of the recent meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. Nothing could be further from the truth. My appreciation for Russian Orthodoxy runs deep, and I continue to venerate her great saints and martyrs just as I find myself nourished intellectually by many of her theologians, old and new. However, truth compels me to be honest about the present state of the Moscow Patriarchate and its illicit “Russian World” ideology. In time these problems will pass just as new ones arise, not just within the realm of the Russian Orthodox Church, but throughout all of Christendom. This is true of the UGCC as well, for it, too, is comprised of fallible, sinful men who have, at times, placed nationalist impulses and ethnic pride above Christian charity when it comes to their estranged Orthodox brethren.

I agree wholeheartedly with Fr. Robert Taft that it is pointless to bicker about which side in the Orthodox/Catholic divide has the cleanest (or dirtiest) hands. Historical injustices should be brought to light and repented of, just as ongoing wrongdoings must be confronted openly and honestly. Does that mean “choosing sides”? Sometimes, though I am hesitant to think of the sorrowful conflict between Catholics and Orthodox as a zero-sum game which must inevitably have a single clear winner. Victory will be achieved through unity, not one side vanquishing the other once and for all.

February 19, 2016 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

A Small Note on Dating the Eastern Schism

Traditional Catholics can’t always be blamed for tripping up on “things Eastern,” what with being panicked over the third Confiteor at Mass or decrying the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary. It’s distracting stuff. So imagine my surprise when several traditional Catholics, including the historian Roberto de Mattei, started combating the media-spread exaggeration that the Patriarch of Moscow and the Pope of Rome have been estranged for 1,000 years. While some Orthodox contest the dating, there is a strong case to be made that the Patriarchate of Moscow came officially into being in 1589, with its Metropolitan status originating a century early in 1448 when it, arguably, inherited the lineage of the See of Kyiv, albeit without canonical approval from the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Although Mattei identifies the beginning of the East/West Schism as 1054, he takes note of the reunion Council of Florence in 1439 and the sad reality that that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 effectively dashed all hope of a permanent end to the rending of Christendom. However, Mattei’s suggestion that the Rome/Moscow split should be dated at the founding of its patriarchate is rather questionable. There should be no doubt that by the time the Russians had imprisoned and illegally deposed Metropolitan Isidore in 1441 for accepting the Council of Florence and illicitly replaced him in 1448 with Jonah of Moscow, the Russian Orthodox Church became officially estranged from the See of Rome.

With respect to the Kyivan Metropolia, while it is well known that a number of its bishops reestablished full communion with Rome in 1596, there was a period of separation between Rome and Kyiv that some date to the end of Metropolitan St. Macarius the Hieromartyr’s brief reign in 1497 or Joseph II in 1501. There can be no doubt that by the time Jonah of Kyiv ascended the throne in 1503, the Metropolia was no longer in full communion with Rome, choosing instead to realign with the Eastern Orthodox who had rejected Florence. This period of estrangement between Rome and Kyiv thankfully came to an end less than a century later, though Russian aggression in the region during the 17th Century, which included Moscow’s imperial claim over the See of Kyiv and its Orthodox adherents, severely undermined Brest and the Greek Catholic Church, along with the rights of Ukrainian Orthodox to this day.